TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- The Effect that BT uses
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

OK

But you know...y'all inpsired me to do tricks I never thought of , AND ALL USING THE BRILLIANT FRUITY LOOPS , the effect I used the most to stutter was the Fruity Slicer , it was damn cool , and I used a bit of Granulizer...

I hope I'll post some of it soon...

Peace

quote:

Originally posted by peejunk Here is another example, from a track, stab stutters are MIDI, pad and guitar are Granulizer with some random and pan on, drum stutters are more like 32nd rolls, and off course, they're MIDI. The mixdown is everything but decent (work in progress). The stutters aren't obvious, they're a bit set "back" in the mix since I didn't want them tho be anything but slight distractions from the flow. http://www.coin-electronic.com/peej...ks_ver_part.mp3

Don't think I'm trying to put you down here - I actually don't mind the sound of the track in general, but the drum stutters at the beginning sound arrhytmic to me.

But I see what you're talking about, and I understand what you're getting at - and now, in light of all this, can you see the difference between the type of edits I'm talking about and the type of edits you're talking about?

quote:

Closer Now 1 (vocal stutters at the beginning and at the end) Cool one at the beginning. Anyway, these are doable using both of my methods. With granlizer you'd need to find the start position of both places you'd want to stutter and paste them in event editor (or keyboard ctrl) and then setup wave and grain settings for that area. Shitty and inprecise but doable and it would sound less controlled and more timestretch-stuttery. For the exact same controlled effect, I'd personally do it with slicer, I'd mark the sweet spots as cue points in Audiion, load in slicer (where the slices would apear on my markers) and use Chop tool and other midi editing in Piano Roll (only maybe shorten the MIDI events sto that gaps create mor stuttering).

Go ahead and try. Those edits took me somewhere between 3 and 5 hours (I kept coming back to them because I wasn't happy with the way they sounded). I don't even remember the exact process I followed, but it was something like:
1. Cut the vocal into 3 or 4 medium slices
2. Apply different processing to each - flanger, overdrive, fuzz, delay, reverb, etc.
3. Slice them all into tiny bits
4. Delete a bunch of them (not necessarily in a row) and actually do the stutter
5. Apply post-processing and envelopes to individual slices (mostly more distortion and flanger)
6. Bounce the entire thing back to audio and apply reverb to smooth it out

It's precisely this type of thing that can't be replicated in a GS or slicer tool. What the GS can't recreate very well is (a) the timing, and (b) the "edginess". In particular (b) - vocals don't have an edgy sound, so if you just repeat or timestretch the same slice it may sound lo-fi but it still doesn't work as a rhythmic element. A lot of work has to be done to make it rhythmic. Maybe other GS tools can do it like crusherX, but not the Granulizer, no way, no how.

The slicer can recreate the timing better, but you basically have to tell it exactly where to cut the slices in order to get the timing right, which is more or less the same as doing it directly to the audio.

But hey, if you are able to reproduce that effect in 20 minutes with a GS tool then by all means, tell me how - I would *love* to save some time on those edits!

quote:

Closer Now 2 (drum stutter) Again with slicer and my break exported as wav, this is more than doable.

Yes, that was a much simpler one and there are lots of ways of doing it.

quote:

Off the Wreckord 1 (spoken vocal stutter - mix quality isn't as good here, sorry) The effect could be achieved by MIDI stuttering the snare drum (again, chop tool in piano roll does most of the work).

I don't know what you're talking about with the snare drum - the stuttering is on the vocal sample.

quote:

BUTRT 1 (glitches in the drums and a stutter on the pad - this is more like what you do with the granulizer) Drum stutters could be replicated by exporting the break and midi stuttering the slicer. The pad effect, as you noticed, could be duplicated using thgranulizer and some automation.

I said it is similar to what you do in the granulizer - but again, good luck getting the rhythm to be correct, and in this case there was also a good bit of pre/post-processing applied as in the first vocal stutter I posted. Automation would handle the post processing, but treating the individual slices/grains is still not possible with the Granulizer.

quote:

BUTRT 2 (lots of glitches in the drums) All I hear are 16th note retriggers here

That edit isn't even a stutter. Listen to the background drums (not kick or snare), especially the high pitched ones like the hats and the electrobird.

The whole point of a good stutter is supposed to be that it isn't painfully obvious to the listener what was done. At least, that's the way I see it. BT and Hybrid's stutters flow with the music and the beat - Autechre's and Squarepusher's *are* the beat.

quote:

I think what it comes down is that you find it more comfortable doing it with audio, and I find it more comfortable using MIDI, maybe because I don't find the way FL handles audio very comfortable at all.

Indeed - and that's why when people ask me why I switched to Cubase, the ability to manipulate audio in the sequencer is in my top 5. FL just can't handle that stuff, and I think that explains a lot about this argument.

Wait a sec...

Hey I would like to interrupt you here Mr.DigiNut!!! , I think that fruity loops can do wayyyyy to much than you think , I think you didn't get more involved into it , the Fruity Slicer is a great tool to make stutter effects...you just can switch to a 1/2 or a 1/4 time slice , and you can alter the Velocity/Cutoff/Res or even pitch , and if you want to get funky you can slice it to 1/3 beat...and see what happens , I used on Vocals (offcourse the Fruity Speech) , Beats and even to a Acid TB303 sound that was subjected to a Disto/Double Flange effect....and all the results were stunning...I'll post some if possible , but belive me (and the speech is directed to DIGINUT) you can do too much stuff with the Fruity Slicer...but you need to be creative enough ... no offence

Peace

Well...I want to throw something here...and the speech is directed to DigiNut , FRUITY can do the best stuff if you just be creative enough (no offence!!! ) , here is what I did yesterday to prove wrong your point of spending tooo much time on slices and stuff , I just used vocals made of e.g. Vocals (a fruity speech generator subjected to WaveDisto/Flanger) , just take a piece and slice it into 1/4 or 1/2 beat slices , you can delete some (if you want) , and then you alter the Velocity/Cutoff/Res and even Pitch to specify what you want , and all this can be applicable to Drums or even an Acid TB303 (and you can imagine what happens when you alter the cutoff of a TB303 )...I know you already know all of this stuff as a composer but don't you think this is too spontaneous to people like you and me and I am telling you the results were Grrrrrrrreat , and stutter effect was surely the greatest...I don't think you probed enough in the FL to tell us that Cubase is better...

Thank y'all for your patience

Bah, why are Fruityloops users so bloody arrogant? I never hear Logic or Cubase or even ProTools users talk this way. I probed into Fruityloops *plenty*, believe me - in fact, I have seen it through the past 3 versions. I quit using it specifically because it couldn't do what I wanted it to do and the interface was really kludgy overall (and when doing complex edits, a good clean interface is absolutely vital).

Yeah, Fruityloops can make some cool effects. SOME, not ALL. The software started out as nothing more than a toy, and yes, I understand it has evolved with leaps and bounds since then, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the "professional" level.

not to mention the summing buss sounds like shit....

quote:

Bah, why are Fruityloops users so bloody arrogant? I never hear Logic or Cubase or even ProTools users talk this way.

Because most of them are n00bs anyway. Most of them are still excited by the thought of making something go, "OONCE OONCE OONCE OONCE". They don't care much for sound quality.

Tyler C - Elsewhere, of all songs, got signed though, so Floops works for me.

quote:

Because most of them are n00bs anyway. Most of them are still excited by the thought of making something go, "OONCE OONCE OONCE OONCE". They don't care much for sound quality.

OH YEAH!!!!...and does Tiesto's ((Traffic)) goes "OONCE OONCE OONCE OONCE"...buddy I think you were high when you replied to this...

Viva Fruity

Uh... I think he was being sarcastic. Claiming Floops insn't 'professional' is rediculous. Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how.

quote:

Originally posted by Axolotyl Uh... I think he was being sarcastic. Claiming Floops insn't 'professional' is rediculous. Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how.

Sorry i dont normaly intervene in these arguments, but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does...

Here's a very easy and quick way to create a stutter effect (no hardware/software involved):

1. Put some auralex on your vocalist's back
2. Wear a boxer glove (for padding)
3. Have vocalist sing a verse
4. Tap him/her on the back while he/she is singing. Padding will deaden your taps. You can bypass steps 1 and 2 for some analog percussion clap/tap sounds.

4a. Increase tapping for lesser delay, decrease for greater delay between "stutters"

4b. Scare the crap out of him/her before the session - with any luck they'll be stuttering all by themselves during recording session. You might even get some random stuttering - you can then nanoquantize it too!

5. For deep base drum, synchronized to stutter and "AAAH" sounds, use baseball bat in step 4. Be careful with your force, extreme force may render your vocalist unconsicous or worse yet, they can knock over your mic and ruin it or the recorded part. Other possibility may be that your singer can take away your bat and use it on you, without your conscent. This could result in the unwanted part, vocalized by you to be recorded. Though you might get a pleasant result, depending on your vocal talent or brittleness of your bones. Nonetheless, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK and don't be afraid to experiment with other tools - you might create a new genre... or give true meaning to style known as "Beats and Breaks"...

Now, that's real "emotional technology" for ya.

Rock on!

quote:

Originally posted by emc^2 Here's a very easy and quick way to create a stutter effect (no hardware/software involved): 1. Put some auralex on your vocalist's back 2. Wear a boxer glove (for padding) 3. Have vocalist sing a verse 4. Tap him/her on the back while he/she is singing. Padding will deaden your taps. You can bypass steps 1 and 2 for some analog percussion clap/tap sounds. 4a. Increase tapping for lesser delay, decrease for greater delay between "stutters" 4b. Scare the crap out of him/her before the session - with any luck they'll be stuttering all by themselves during recording session. You might even get some random stuttering - you can then nanoquantize it too! 5. For deep base drum, synchronized to stutter and "AAAH" sounds, use baseball bat in step 4. Be careful with your force, extreme force may render your vocalist unconsicous or worse yet, they can knock over your mic and ruin it or the recorded part. Other possibility may be that your singer can take away your bat and use it on you, without your conscent. This could result in the unwanted part, vocalized by you to be recorded. Though you might get a pleasant result, depending on your vocal talent or brittleness of your bones. Nonetheless, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK and don't be afraid to experiment with other tools - you might create a new genre... or give true meaning to style known as "Beats and Breaks"... Now, that's real "emotional technology" for ya. Rock on!

lol

quote:

Originally posted by Axolotyl Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how.

You know what the craftsmen say, the right tool for the right job. Some jobs you can do with duct tape, others need a couple of screwdrivers, and others need the jigsaw and belt sander.

There are lots of things Fruityloops can do - and there are lots of things it can't do. Same goes for Reason, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools...

quote:

Originally posted by Apollo303 OH YEAH!!!!...and does Tiesto's ((Traffic)) goes "OONCE OONCE OONCE OONCE"...buddy I think you were high when you replied to this... Viva Fruity

Exactly. Anyone can make that sound. Even Tiesto.

And I don't smoke, ass.

quote:

Originally posted by Axo Uh... I think he was being sarcastic. Claiming Floops insn't 'professional' is rediculous. Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how.

I'm serious. I'm not saying it isn't professional. I'm saying it isn't as high quality as some of the more expensive programs.

It's getting better, though. And in keeping with Fr0st's Law, it's price is increasing for people who don't already own it.

quote:

The software started out as nothing more than a toy, and yes, I understand it has evolved with leaps and bounds since then, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the "professional" level.

Yeah,Im with u on that !

I also like the feel for logic but that was only when it was on the pc 5.2,too bad its on the mac now,but hey we cant have everything !I still have reason and cubase sx

Cuabse sx to the end

Also stop covering up for ur toy software, by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using,

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st Sorry i dont normaly intervene in these arguments, but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does...

And that doesnt make it professional?

I hate the way 'pro' is slung around like a term of cedibility. If you can put together a track with it, and master it to a good level then as far as I'm concernced its pro.

I use Live, which I admit doesnt sound quite as good as cubase sometimes, but for my purposes it does me fine. I know where its weaknesses lie and can compensate for it in my final master, just as I would with my monitor setup. I'm not trying to score films in 5.1 and I know at the end of they day I'll be able to get a good sound out of it, regardless of what technical specifications say about the bus. I'm not an audio programmer and have no desier to be, so why should some numbers matter to me if I'm confident in my ability of produce a clean sound from my host?

I dont see the point of claiming packages or the people that use them are not pro, arrogent, delusional of whatever. It just creates an us vs them mentality. I've heard fantastic trance mastered in Floops and complete and utter shite come out of Logic. One of the best producers I know prefers Muzy, which is completely free...??

Its rediculous to get all high and mighty about a host. Its all about the ideas and knowledge of the user and the care they take in producing a clean sound. Host preference is exactly that... just a preference...

quote:

Originally posted by Reactance Also stop covering up for ur toy software by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using,

Da fuck?

Are you serious?



I dont even use Floops, but nevertheless if you think its a toy, then you should really spend some more time producing. Then you might actually realise that the host has very little to do with the quality of the end product.

Hey i was not talking about u !

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st Sorry i dont normaly intervene in these arguments, but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does...

Ahh, a Vestmanist.. Well, this is utter bollocks, my friend. Here chew on this:

http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthrea...103#post2683103

Tho I kinda doubt you'll understand it. Read the rest of the discussion but the post I directly link to is the place wher our unbeleiving Thomas realises he was way off.

Again, summing is a simple floating point addition that each application dlegates to the CPU to do, which in turn delegates it to the FPU, which (FPUs) all have a defined algorythm for all mathematical operations that ensure, among other things, that each summing of some two figures gives the exact same result every time (otherwyse, computers as we know them, couldn't work).

This behavior is defined by something called the IEEE 754 standard, and is now a common design of about 99% FPUs of all computers or computer-based equipment on the market, including Mac, PC and various specialized platforms including DSP chips that run your precious Viruses and Nords.

Yes, there are differences in hosts, but they are definetly not in summing "quality" or "sound quality". We would first have to define sound quality in easily descriptive and objectively measurable terms. Only a total computer illiterate could add something like "quality" to summing.

It's the features that make the price range division, and most of them are of little use to dance producers. I've tried many hosts (including Cubase in versions going form 3.7 to SX2), finished tracks in all of them and fucked around with their inside stuff and I've found that the only thing that matters in the end is the workflow, and FL workflow suits ME the best. Simple as that.

Please explain to people like Concord Dawn or Black Sun Empire, that FL Studio summing sucks, so they can punch you on the head with their best-selling club hit vinyls like 'Morning Light' etc.

quote:

Originally posted by peejunk It's the features that make the price range division, and most of them are of little use to dance producers.

Damn straight. No offense to anyone, but were not exactly composing soundtracks here. Most of us are making relatively formulaic trance. No one said it was easy, and it does require some know how, but any of the major hosts are more than up to the task.

quote:

Yeah,Im with u on that ! I also like the feel for logic but that was only when it was on the pc 5.2,too bad its on the mac now,but hey we cant have everything !I still have reason and cubase sx Cuabse sx to the end

quote:

Also stop covering up for ur toy software, by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using,

Well, DigiNut, I guess you can stop saying it's just Floops users who are arrogant. And he's incoherent to boot.

And by the way, peejunk, that link was an awesome read.

I never said anything was better than anything else.. But fact is they sound different cubase/logic/protools I cant tell the difference. But i can deffinately hear a difference in live and floops.. The same difference I can hear at 44.1 KHz vs 98khz along with 24bit and 16bit and its not just in volume... Ohwell i should just steer of the production forums because aparently everyone knows everything..

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st I never said anything was better than anything else..

You haven't, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st not to mention the summing buss sounds like shit....

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does...

Is it me or you have a very short/selective memory?

quote:

Originally posted by fr0st But fact is they sound different cubase/logic/protools I cant tell the difference. But i can deffinately hear a difference in live and floops.. The same difference I can hear at 44.1 KHz vs 98khz along with 24bit and 16bit and its not just in volume... Ohwell i should just steer of the production forums because aparently everyone knows everything..

First of all, how on earth can you know that it's not the difference in volume!? Fletcher-Munson law (something people get taught in decent audio/electroacoustic schools not sponsored by gear manufacturers) teaches us that humans percieve differences in volume as differences in tonal balance and character and vice versa. You must be one of those professional listeners with perfect pitch and trained ear when you hear all those differences and are 100% positive it's not just volume, right?

Also, there are so many things that factor in the difference between 44.1 and 96 (whether you're recording audio at one of the rates, listening to some plugins calculated at these two different precisions or just audio being resampled to that freq and depending on what frequency it was recorded) that in no way one could single out what is the difference between 96/44.1, most what we hear is that it exists. Same goes for 16/24.

Are you 100% positive that you would hear that difference if you didn't know what you're listening to (google for "blind sound tests")? I wouldn't be so sure, perception wasn't built to disect audio, notice differences in bitdepth or samplerate, it was built to enhance sound of dangerous things and voices of other humans.

Same goes for people that claim they can ALWAYS hear difference between hardware and software synths (off course all digital virtual analogue synths are different due to diferent algos, but not many, if any people can go and differentiate from bunch of different sw and hw recordings in a completely blind test).

quote:

Originally posted by peejunk Fletcher-Munson law (something people get taught in decent audio/electroacoustic schools not sponsored by gear manufacturers) teaches us that humans percieve differences in volume as differences in tonal balance and character and vice versa.

I'm not familiar with that particular law, but I will agree that this is definitely true. More often than not, the reason professional releases sound "loud" is because of simple EQ-ing, not fancy $5000 valve compressors.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.